Analysis
Through the plays of Sawomir Mroek, observed Kott, the Poland that meant nowhere to Alfred Jarry in Ubu roi (wr. 1888, pr., pb. 1896; English translation, 1951) is now everywhere indeed. Both Mroek’s short fiction and his plays, although influenced by an Absurdist tradition of which Jarry is a part, translate the experience of modern Poland into a striking vision that depends on the tension between the surreal and the real. Whereas Jarry used a fantastical Poland as a metaphor for a destructive banality that allows human cruelty to thrive, Mroek renders his actual experience in Poland as an ironic nightmare in which the reality of daily life is shaped by a regimen of absurdity and bureaucratic banality. The world he captures has survived the grotesque experience of World War II only to be forced to accept the inevitable prospect of endless Soviet domination. Mroek captures the absurd workings of this society in a concise, usually unelaborate style marked by an ironic sensibility cultivated as a response to illogical happenings and to absurdity as inextricable parts of existence.
Theater critics outside Poland have often found themselves at a loss in discussing the peculiarities of Mroek’s work as well as the traditions of the Polish theater to which his plays are indebted. Martin Esslin has called him an absurdist who creates political theater; Daniel Gerould has dubbed Mroek, along with his countryman Tadeusz Róewicz, heir to a legacy of Polish avant-garde drama; and Tango has been described as both an Aesopian satire and a Shavian play of ideas. Mroek’s plays, however, exceed the limits of any one school or movement. His development as a dramatist is a chronicle of formal innovation and experimentation in response to theater history and to the culture and history of Poland. Yet, as Jan Kott, the Polish critic, has noted, in Mroek’s plays the references go beyond Poland to encompass all Europe.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Mroek’s attempts to redefine the theater in the wake of the triumph of the absurdists, an endeavor analogous to the work of such dramatists as Edward Bond, Václav Havel, Arthur Kopit, and Stoppard. As one of his Polish precursors, Stanisaw Ignacy Witkiewicz (Witkacy), intended to do, Mroek redefines the drama through a revolution in form, and his plays spring from a dramatic consciousness that shares Witkacy’s belief that the playwright must shake off old habits and stop repeating the past. All of Mroek’s work during the first part of his career generically addresses itself to the problem of form in postabsurdist art, and Tango deals specifically with the questions of form as a necessary component of social, political, and cultural history. The opening of Tango in Poland in 1965 is considered the most explosive night in Polish theater since the premiere of Stanisaw Wyspiaski’s Wesele (pr., pb. 1901; The Wedding, 1933), and the numerous productions of Tango throughout the world have focused attention on both Mroek and Polish drama. His plays have been produced in Canada, France, Great Britain, Norway, the Soviet Union, the United States, and West Germany.
Czesaw Miosz has observed that Mroek often employs a sly parody of styles in his work, and both his fiction and his plays have been described as parables. The absurd, grotesque, totalitarian environment that had conditioned Mroek’s thinking deprives him of bestowing on his works the customary happy ending or simple moral associated with such tales. His short fiction is populated with children, talking animals, elves, and snowmen who migrate to the mountains when spring threatens to melt them into puddles. Yet, side by side with the fantastical...
(This entire section contains 4421 words.)
Unlock this Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
are everyday quarreling comrades, petty bureaucrats, unsuccessful suitors, aging relatives, foolish soldiers, and dishonest zookeepers. The result is a highly stylized universe that allows Mroek, like Franz Kafka before him, to balance the grotesque with the whimsical imagination.
Thus, Mroek blends the fantastical and the real, and the result, like the superimposition of one drawing on another, is striking in its visual effect. In “On a Journey,” a traveler in a horse-drawn chaise riding through an utterly believable country landscape notices that men in postal uniforms are standing at measured intervals along the road. The coachman informs the traveler that the men constitute the region’s wireless telegraph: One yells to the next, and he yells to the next, and so on. During The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey, in which a tiger is supposedly discovered in a middle-class family’s bathroom, an entire circus is set up in the family’s apartment without moving a single piece of furniture.
In response to totalitarian doublespeak, Mroek often subverts language through substituting an unlikely vocabulary for an expected one. Mroek describes an idyllic, rural wedding celebration in “A Wedding in Atom-town” but imposes on this conventional setting the trappings of nuclear jargon in place of colloquial speech. In preparation for the wedding, the bride is given electrolysis and put in a compression chamber, and, when a fight erupts during the wedding celebration, the guests deploy short-range rockets and cuff one another with atomic knuckledusters. Arguments for cannibalism in Out at Sea are presented by each character in speeches that use the rhetorical devices of political oratory, and two of the speakers stage a brief rally, where they wave a banner that reads, “We Want Food.” The two men forced into a room by a huge hand in Striptease attempt to deal with the inexplicable appendage in logical, philosophical language that scarcely masks their fear and helplessness. Implausible, but appropriate, such language choices function in Mroek’s work beyond mere satire to substantiate the intrinsic imaginative validity of each particular story and play.
Mroek’s targets are by no means limited to the manifestations of the repressive political and social climate in Poland. Pressure to conform, and thus surrender the imagination, comes not only from the state, but also from the established artistic community. His portraits of the artist can be scathing; he attacks both aesthete and social realist in his short stories. Mroek, however, was never strongly aligned with an active, subversive avant-garde in his country, as his satire of the Polish avant-garde in “Escape Southward” demonstrates. Moreover, the same story presents Mroek at his most amusing and his most forceful in that it makes a travesty of the international avant-garde masterpiece, Beckett’s En attendant Godot (pb. 1952, pr. 1953 Waiting for Godot, 1954). His portraits of the foolish Eleanor and the ineffectual Stomil in Tango provide further evidence of his disparagement of the avant-garde, yet, paradoxically, his own drama is indebted to two of his Polish avant-garde precursors, Witold Gombrowicz and Witkacy. For Mroek, the imagination, which cannot be subjected to state law or the pressure of artistic peers, seems even more alluring, more triumphant, when cast against a background of ideological indoctrination and rigid artistic conventions.
His conception of the artist and of art itself lies squarely in the Romantic tradition that has evolved from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Percy Bysshe Shelley down through the existentialists. In Tango, artists are construed as historically gifted people who, unlike other men, are united with the spirit of women and children, and Mroek’s experiences under tyranny have led him to see that Shelley’s proud boast that poets are indeed the unacknowledged legislators of the world is taken seriously by men in power. They fear that the poet’s effect might loosen their hold, and consequently they suppress a force they understand too well as a threat to their own security. As the brutish Eddie tells Stomil near the end of act 3 of Tango, “Nothing to worry about so long as you keep quiet and do what I say.” The artist in Mroek’s work embodies many Romantic qualities: He is a solitary figure, he rebels against artistic convention, he struggles for the triumph of the imagination, and he is a political progressive.
This artistic stance is particularly apt in the Polish theater, which is often used as a forum for the presentation of ideas for cultural and political debate. Despite the particular dramatic technique at work in sophisticated Polish theater, the major Polish plays of the past one hundred years inevitably involve the clash of ideas. Wyspiaski’s plays, for example, decidedly romantic and full of spectacle, ultimately deal with political and social issues. The same audience that applauded Wyspiaski also cultivated a taste for the unelaborate intellectual play of ideas. In addition, the oddity of Polish nationalism, grounded in cultural heritage and Roman Catholicism rather than in geographical reality, has resulted in a number of paradoxes that have helped shape the themes and techniques of modern Polish theater; Mroek’s work continues this tradition.
Soviet repression did not alter this, although it forced Mroek, while living in Poland, to develop an oblique dramaturgy that, while receiving government approval, served to reinforce, in its allusions and idioms, Polish national feeling. Mroek’s introduction to The Police, in which he carefully explains that “this play does not contain anything except what it contains,” is an example of ingenious equivocation that invites the audience to look for everything he says is not there. Most of Mroek’s early plays contain direct, if often subtle, allusions to the political situation of contemporary Poland; this state of affairs, which helped shape the vision of Mroek’s fiction, is concisely rendered in one exchange in the third act of Tango. Stomil asks if he can still have his own opinion. “Of course,” replies Eugene. “As long as it agrees with ours.”
The Police
The Police, Mroek’s first play to receive considerable attention, puts onstage a world in which this kind of totalitarian attitude has triumphed. The last remaining prisoner in a police state disavows all of his former revolutionary beliefs and swears allegiance to the heads of state, the Infant King, and his Uncle the Regent, thus effectively rendering the police obsolete. The Chief of Police, disturbed by the prospect of an entire bureaucratic system deprived of purpose, persuades the loyal Sergeant, in the name of saving the police, to shout out a window that the Regent, uncle to the Infant King, is a “dirty swine.” This accomplished, the Chief arrests the Sergeant, and the police again have a raison d’être. The play’s action degenerates into an absurd series of arrests and counterarrests by characters with cartoonlike aspects that help push their world closer to fantasy. The connection between the fantasy of the play and the absurd reality of life in a police state, apparent to Mroek’s audience from the onset, is clearly stated in the Sergeant’s final, futile yell in act 3: “Long live freedom!”
The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey
The initial premise of The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey is more absurd than that which sets the plot of The Police in action. The structure of the play, hinted at by the pseudo-epic subtitles that Mroek gives to each scene, is episodic, piling one absurdity on another and leading to Ohey’s death by gunshot. Of all Mroek’s plays, The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey is closest to the Theater of the Absurd, especially to the work of Eugène Ionesco. Like Ionesco’s Berenger in Rhinocéros (pr., pb. 1959; Rhinoceros, 1959), Mroek’s Ohey confronts the impossible and is left to find the refuge of self insufficient. Ohey’s son insists that he has been bitten by the tiger, but he shows no markings; his daughter is carrying on with the Scientist in her bedroom, which is ostensibly a temporary tiger-observation center; and his wife, an Ionesco-like creation who admonishes the children to brush their teeth before meals or risk poisoning the soup, confesses to her husband in a satire of Jungian jargon how the tiger has stolen her heart away. Deserted by his family and tyrannized by the forces of society gathered in his house, Ohey agrees to sacrifice himself to the unseen and unreal tiger by playing decoy for a Maharaja’s hunt. In the final moments of the play, Mroek makes the allegorical functions of his characters explicit, and like Ionesco and Edward Albee, uses the form of the absurd as a vehicle for social comment. Confronted by a Foreign Office Man, a Circus Manager, and a Scientist, Ohey declares in act 3, “My house is a milling ground for politics, science, art, and authority.” Ohey goes to his death in the third act to escape these contemporary furies with words that foreshadow Arthur’s sentiments in Tango: “This age does not please me and I have no wish to seek slavishly for its approval.”
Everything is possible in the play—a circus, a jungle safari through Ohey’s dining room, two murders offstage while characters comment like newscasters—because Mroek’s absurdist technique depends on implausibility. As a result of the focus that Peter Ohey procures through the overwhelming and absurd events thrust on him in the play, he emerges from this fantastic world as more than a mere two-dimensional figure. Peter Ohey is one of Mroek’s few characters to have an actual name. He suffers, has fears, changes in the course of the action, and serves as Mroek’s spokesman by the play’s end.
Out at Sea and Charlie
This emphasis on character is not developed in either Out at Sea or Charlie, one-act plays that were published and produced in 1961. Murder figures prominently in both plays, as it does in The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey, but the action of these plays, abrupt and effective, stresses situation over character. In Out at Sea, Fat, Medium, and Thin, three survivors of a shipwreck, dressed in tuxedos, sit on chairs on a raft and debate, because they are hungry, which of their party they will eat to survive. The political metaphor of cannibalism is presented in a stylized way through such details as a tablecloth, china, cutlery, silverware, and a vase of flowers. The grotesque flourishes of Out at Sea seem to evolve logically from the preposterous premise of the play. For this technique, Mroek is indebted to the plays of Gombrowicz, whose theater relies primarily on developing terrifying situations. This influence is also apparent in Charlie, in which an Oculist saves his own life by convincing a murderous Grandpa in need of glasses that one of his regular eye patients is the Grandpa’s traditional—and, like the tiger in The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey, imaginary—enemy.
Striptease
Striptease, originally produced in Sopot on the same program with Charlie, is a much richer, more complex piece that demonstrates Mroek’s mastery of theater idiom as well as political metaphor. Two identically dressed bureaucrats carrying briefcases, Mr. I and Mr. II, are forced into a room. A huge hand appears and demands that the men take off their clothing. They comply, but not without bickering between themselves, until a second hand wearing a red glove appears and beckons them to follow. The first hand puts dunce caps over their heads while they, clad in their underwear and clinging to their briefcases, stumble out after the second hand. Certainly, Striptease can be read as a political allegory in which two men, representing opposite concepts of freedom, are subjected to a tyrant who treats them both in the same way.
Striptease bears some resemblance to Harold Pinter’s The Dumb Waiter (pr. 1959 in German, pr. 1960 in English) and to Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (pr. 1966) in its delineation of a force that controls the existence of two men and capriciously makes them victims, and it is no less overtly theatrical than either play. The doors that open and close by themselves and the huge hand entering and exiting call attention to the artifice of the stage. The play makes no pretense at being anything but pure theater, and the logical answer to the men’s queries about how they arrived in the room is, for the audience, from the wings. Mr. I and Mr. II are a variation of the music-hall duo, and Mroek utilizes, as did Beckett in Fin de partie: Suivi de Acte sans paroles (pr., pb. 1957; Endgame: A Play in One Act, Followed by Act Without Words: A Mime for One Player, 1958), the rubric of vaudeville sketches in which performers are controlled and defeated by objects and props.
The Party
Whereas Striptease relies on an essential theatricality for its effect, The Party investigates the ritualistic aspects of theater. Three farmers in search of a party they cannot find create one of their own; they engage in praying, singing, dancing, playacting, fighting, and hanging. They seek meaning in an empty room through trying to shape a party out of the fragments of rituals that they recall. Finally, they open up an old cupboard that contains masks, costumes, shoes, and props. One of them, designated as B, exclaims, “There’s a whole theater here!” They proceed to try on the dresses, slip on high-heeled shoes, and wear the larger-than-life masks that represent the King, the Virgin, and Death. Mroek’s farmers momentarily reenact the primitive essentials of the drama—the formless energy of Dionysus ritualized into the Apollonian formality of drama. The actors pretend to be farmers who pretend to be actors, and the cycle of the theater ritual is complete.
Enchanted Night
Enchanted Night explores not so much ritual as the dimensions of reality discerned by the mind. Through a progression from the reality of a hotel room that two traveling officials share into a dream that they experience simultaneously, Mroek offers a sophisticated parody of the mechanics of expressionism. The beginning of the play carefully establishes the objects in the hotel room and the feelings of the two men that will be integral to the dream that evolves from them—their discussion about women, the noise of the railroad nearby, the painting of the Venus de Milo, the smell of lilac soap. The play’s movement from reality to dream and back again, a structuring device often used in the poetry of the Romantics, criticizes human inability to reach the ideal. Despite the insight that Old Man and Old Boy gain about themselves in their dream of the ideal, when they awake they do not remember a thing. The use of dreams in Enchanted Night also demonstrates Mroek’s relationship to the twentieth century Polish theater techniques of Julius Osterwa, who attempted through psychological chamber theater to explore the entire interior aspect of character and concentrate on mood and atmosphere.
Tango
No play by Mroek, however, makes use of dramatic modes, both Polish and non-Polish, in the way Tango does. It is an outgrowth of and advance over all of his earlier work, and, as noted above, it signals the conclusion of the first phase of his playwriting career. Tango is the artistic expression of a reality more dramatic than drama, a world whose power, as Stomil says in act 2, “erodes all forms and that goes for tragedy too.” Tango stands as Mroek’s answer to Stomil’s question in the play’s second act: “What can we do? Tragedy impossible, farce a bore—what’s left but experiments?”
Tango, set in the mid-1960’s, takes place in the cluttered, disorganized home of a family that encompasses three and one-half generations. Eugenia and her brother, Uncle Eugene, remnants of the late nineteenth century, live with Eugenia’s daughter Eleanor and her avant-garde artist husband, Stomil, both of whom belong to the generation of André Breton and Tristan Tzara. On hand is a fat and boorish butler, Eddie (or Edek), who plays cards with the family, sleeps with Eleanor, and attempts to exploit the decadence of the household for his own advantage. This morass of confusion proves intolerable for Arthur, the twenty-five-year-old son of Eleanor and Stomil, who attempts to force the household to reorganize itself through the imposition of old rituals and customs on its members, an endeavor to which the play’s ironic subtitle “The Need for Order and Harmony,” alludes. Part of Arthur’s scheme involves marriage to his eighteen-year-old cousin, Ala, a half-generation younger than he is chronologically but years ahead of him emotionally. With the help of Uncle Eugene, Arthur stages a coup d’état and forces the family, at gunpoint, to revert to the old ways that embodied meaning before the major upheavals of the twentieth century.
Just before his marriage to Ala, however, Arthur gets drunk and despairs of his method of returning to old customs. He decides instead to exercise absolute power over life and death to create meaning. In a moment of weakness brought on by Ala’s disclosure that she has been unfaithful to him with Eddie, a lie she invents to distract Arthur from ordering Uncle Eugene’s death, Arthur humanizes himself in a fit of jealous rage. Eddie, who has Arthur’s gun, stages a brief counterrevolution; attracted by the idea of pure force, he uses his physical prowess to end Arthur’s brief exercise with power by killing him with two swift blows to the back of the neck. Eddie assumes control over the household, and, as the play ends, dances a tango with Uncle Eugene over the corpse of the misguided, although idealistic and romantic, Arthur.
The world to which Tango alludes is real, but it is at the same time deliberately nonrealistic, a poetic construct of reality. Mroek intends to portray in the guise of a three-act chronicle of one household a parable of life in the twentieth century. Eugenia represents the old generation, once shocked by people such as Eleanor and Stomil, but now bored and cynical, frittering away existence in useless poker games. Uncle Eugene, with his memoirs and his nostalgia for the order of the past, stands for the aristocracy displaced by the cultural and political events of the twentieth century. Eleanor and Stomil, married in 1928, are the aging, now ineffectual artists who once achieved their goal of destroying all artistic tradition and, consequently, all form. They also represent an entire generation that could not wrestle with the necessity of form as a political reality and thus sacrificed Poland’s brief independence as a nation to Germany and the Soviet Union. Whereas Arthur embodies the spirit of the romantic visionary desperate to have the world conform to an impossible ideal, Ala functions as a representative of the apolitical, personal liberation movement that began to spread through most social strata in the 1960’s. Eddie, with his gross habits and small, square moustache, represents the ignorant but powerful mob that resorts to Hitlers and Stalins to assert itself. Mroek, a socialist-humanist, cannot reconcile himself to tyranny in any form. The triumph of Eddie in Tango, on a political level, alludes to the subjugation of humanistic social ideals by inhuman force—the revisionist Marxism of the Soviet Union—which is a way of life for the victimized Poles.
Like Shaw’s Heartbreak House (wr. 1913-1919, pb. 1919) and its Chekhovian antecedents, Tango uses an extended family to chart the passing of a way of life. It once took courage for Stomil and Eleanor to dance the tango in public; when Eddie and Uncle Eugene dance the tango at the play’s end, it becomes a pas de deux of force and submission. Art and politics are partners in history, and Tango is addressed to an era of the triumphal dance of tyranny on the corpse of visions and ideals.
The Prophets and Repeat Performance
The Prophets and Repeat Performance, which was not produced in Poland until eleven years after its publication, explore in different ways some of Mroek’s concerns in Tango. The Prophets mixes historical figures such as the Magi with caricatures of political types in a grotesque, futuristic fantasy about two identical men who both claim to be the one, true prophet for mankind. Whereas this play ends with a cataclysmic spectacle of revolution that asserts, through a series of absurd and Surrealistic devices, a Marxist view of the inevitable dialectic of history, Repeat Performance insists on an inescapable need for rebellion in each generation. The Ghost, an allegorical figure who represents the spirit of rebellion, once courted Daddy through fascism but now woos Daddy’s son, Little Fellow, simply by being anti-Daddy.
Vatzlav
Vatzlav, which had its English-language premiere at Canada’s Stratford Festival in 1971, follows the adventures of a shipwreck survivor through a world that is composed of Mroek’s arbitrary reconstruction of history. Comprising seventy-seven scenes, Vatzlav is nearly cinematic in its movement, a development that can be linked to Mroek’s debt to silent-film comedy in some of the pre-Tango plays. Vatzlav contrasts the destruction represented by the bloodsucking capitalist Mr. Bat with Vatzlav’s various rebirths and transformations. The play ends with a hopeful image. Cradling in his arms a baby who is the child of Justice, Vatzlav prepares to cross the border of the play into the world. “You wait here,” he says to the audience in scene 77. “If I don’t come back, you’ll know I’ve made it. Then you can follow.”
The Emigrés
This guarded optimism is not reflected in The Emigrés, a gritty, naturalistic play in which two Eastern European men square off against one another in a basement apartment that they share in a Western European city. Mroek seems to have inverted the theatrical techniques of Striptease and The Party in The Emigrés to examine the relationship between two expatriates of opposing views who, trapped together, try without success to celebrate New Year’s Eve. They are singularly obsessed with the country they have left, however, and their freedom, ironically, forces them to confront their own inadequacies in the new life they lead.
Later Works
Certain other works that Mroek has written since Tango explore relatively new territory for the playwright, although most retain his sense of irony and his ability to convey the grotesque. The Home on the Border, adapted for television from his short story of the same name, concerns the inhabitants of a cabin who have an international border running directly through their home. Rzenia, originally written for radio, demonstrates the inability of art to withstand intrusions by life. His one-act plays Serenada, Polowanie na lisa, Lis filozof, and Lis aspirint employ the methods of beast fables to comment on decaying civilization, and Alpha, which premiered at New York City’s La Mama ETC in October, 1984, uses direct contemporary allusion to the celebrity status of Lech Walesa to examine ironically the nature of revolutionary leadership in a media-saturated world.